3 remedies adequately designed to protect specific rights and by implementing appropriate legal practices; and Article 8(1) establishes the manner in which those judicial remedies must be filed in any case. States may then adjust their conducts to each one of these three moments of domestic protection, clearly analyzing whether the rules, remedies, practices and specific judicial procedures adjusted to the terms provided for in such rules. Otherwise, States will simple focus on one general problem (in this case, the unwarranted delay) that would violate, without making any difference, Article 8(1) and 25(1), when it is possible that multiple problems may exist and affect one provision or the other without necessarily having to be simultaneously applied to. 12. Moreover, the application of these two provisions, without making any difference, does not increase nor does it strengthen the protection of the Convention, that is the purpose and end of this instrument; otherwise, it makes it less effective and more confusing. The permanent combining application of these provisions reduces the importance for the State to take precise measures that will eventually solve, in an effective manner, some of the problems specified in Article 8(1) or Article 25(1). The State is then discouraged from adopting measures that, though partial, may help improve the situation of the victim in a case. In other words, the State shall only be able to comply with the obligations of Article 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention once it has solved all and each one of the problems of both articles since, in many situations, solving those problems related to Article 8(1), would not be sufficient in order to exclude its international responsibility for the violation of Article 25(1) and vice-versa. 13. Lastly, I must add that this does not imply that, under certain circumstances, both provisions cannot be simultaneously violated. But this is not the case. Diego Rodríguez Pinzón Judge ad hoc Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary